V. I. Lenin

Party Unity Abroad

Published:Sotsial-DemokratNo. 13, April 26 (May 9), 1910.

      Published according to the text inSotsial-Demokrat.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,[1974],

      Moscow,Volume 16,

      pages185-188.Translated:Transcription\Markup:R. CymbalaCopyleft:V. I. Lenin Internet Archive (www.marxists.org)
      © 2004

      Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the
      terms of theGNU Free Documentation License.

Abase of operations abroad is necessary and inevitable for
a party which is working in conditions like ours. Every one who reflects on
the position of the Party will admit this is so. However pessimistic the
comrades in Russia feel about “abroad” it will be far from disserviceable
to them toknowwhat is going on here, particularly after the
recent plenary session.

Hasunity been achieved abroad? No. And for a very simple reason: one
of the sides—the Golosists—shows absolutely no desire to respond to the
unanimous appeal of the Central Committee to put an end to the split
abroad. The factionalGolos, contrary to the unanimous decision of
the Central Committee, did not close down, although at the plenum one of
Its editors, Comrade Martov, officially declared (see the minutes of the
plenum) that he would try to get it stopped temporarily at any

				rate.[1]Before the Central Committee Bureau Abroad had time to take any steps
towards unity the four editors ofGolos(two of them members of
the editorial board of the Central Organ!!) issued a manifesto with a
thinly veiled injunction not to aim at unity. The foreign
C.B.G.A. (“Central Bureau of Groups Abroad”, which was elected in Basle
one-and-a-half years ago at afactionalCongress of Mensheviks)
did the same.This C.B.G.A. now does not even represent all the Mensheviks but only their
Golosist section. But with the support ofGolosit is strong
enough to disrupt unity. All the Central Committee Bureau Abroad can do now
is to appeal to the groups themselves, the pro-Party elements and above all
the workers. But—for reasons which are discussed be low—this is not
being done, or is being done very unsatisfactorily. As before, the Central
Committee abroad can count so far only on the support of the Bolshevik
groups. Lately, however, they are being reinforced by the pro-Party
Mensheviks, the enemies of liquidationism (for the most part they are on
the side of Comrade Plekhanov’sDnevnik).

Theideological differentiation of the Mensheviks abroad has, of
course, considerable significance as a symptom, as a reflection of what is
taking place—perhaps less obviously—in Russia as well. The pro-Party
Mensheviks have already passed a number of resolutions in this
connection. Here are a few excerpts from them. The anti-Golosist Mensheviks
in Paris (there are about 20 of them) write:

“...in No. 19–20 of this organ (Golos) a new course is
undoubtedly indicated, incidentally, in Comrade Dan’s article ‘The Fight
for Legality’, which seeks to replace Social-Democratic slogans by a
specific slogan, ambiguous to say the least, which is the very twin of the
slogan of the ‘Economic’ period:the fight for rights”,
... “liquidationism, which the editorial board ofGoloshas
repudiated until now, has found frank expression in the last issue of this
newspaper”. The pro-Party Mensheviks in Geneva (14 persons) find that
“the cessation of the factionalGolos Sotsial-Demokratais an
essential condition for strengthening Party unity”.

Thegroup of pro-Party Mensheviks in Nice is of the opinion
(unanimously) that “in No. 19–20 of this organ (Golos),
liquidationism has already been frankly expressed in a number of
articles. The group finds that such a policy on the part ofGolos
Sotsial-Demokratais harmful and refuses to give it any support
whatsoever. The group is indignant at the behaviour of Mikhail, Roman and
Yuri, who have proved unworthy of the confidence of the last Party Congress
and have carried liquidationist tendencies to their ghastly conclusion as
regards practical manifestations”. The group of pro-Party Mensheviks in
San Remo “unanimously refuseany support whatsoever for the said publication (Golos) because
they do not subscribe to its liquidationist tendencies. The group cannot
restrain their indignation evoked by the conduct of Mikhail, Roman and
Yuri”. The pro-Party Mensheviks in Liége write in their resolution:

“The letter from Stiva Novich and F. Dan’s article ‘The Fight for
Legality’ (inGolosNo. 19–20) make quite definite the anti-Party
trend of this organ....Golos Sotsial-Demokratais a centre around
which the liquidationist tendencies are grouping.” The same point of view
is taken by a considerable section of the Menshevik group in Zurich and the
majority of the group in Berne. There are supporters of the pro-Party
Mensheviks in other cities too.

Onlyby uniting these Menshevikpro-Partyelements with the
Bolsheviks and the non-factionalParty memberswho are opposed to
liquidationism could the Central Committee Bureau Abroad achieve results
and help the work in Russia. And this is exactly what the Bolsheviks abroad
are exhorting all comrades to do (see the resolution of the second Paris

group).{2}A struggle against the Golosists who are disrupting unity and
against the otzovist-ultimatumists who walked out of the editorial board ofDiskussionny Listokand the general Party committee of the school
and who are also undermining Party unity is inevitable if all the real
pro-Party elements are to be brought solidly together. So far this has been
left to the private initiative of the pro-Party elements, for the
C.C. Bureau Abroad hasso farproved incapable of adopting the
proper position. According to the new Rules, three of the five members of
the Bureau Abroad are appointed by “nationals”; thus it isnotthe Central Committee of the Party that determines the personnel of the
majority of the C.C. Bureau Abroad, and this produces some unexpected and
surprising results. For instance, at a recent session of the C.C. Bureau
Abroad a majority was formedagainstthe line of the Central
Committee. A new majority consisting of one Golosist and two alleged,
“non-factional” nationals refused to endorse the “modus” of uniting the
groups (in the spirit of the decisions of the plenum, i.e., with the demand
that all funds be turned over to the Central Committee andnotto
the factional organs) which was worked out directly after the plenum of the
Central Committee. It turned downthe proposal (of a Bolshevik and a Polish Social-Democrat) in a letter to
each of the groups that the slogan should be put forward: all funds to be
given to the general Party bodies and not to the factional newspapers
(i.e.,Golos Sotsial-Demokrata). This decision evoked a sharp
protest from two members of the C.C. Bureau Abroad (a Bolshevik and a
Polish Social-Democrat), who have sent their protest to the Central
Committee.

[1]Here is the text of the statement:

“ComradeMartov declares that although he cannot speakofficiallyfor the editorial board ofGolos
Sotsial-Demokrata, he can say for himself personally that there will
be no obstacles in the editorial board of “Golos
Sotsial-Demokrata”to stopping“Golos”
temporarily after the next issue (for a couple of months or even longer) as
an experiment pending the results of the work of the new editorial board of
the Central Organ.”  —Lenin

{2}TheSecond Paris Group for Assistance to the R.S.D.L.P.was
formed in November 1908. It was an offshoot of the general Paris group that
included the Mensheviks and was a union of the Bolsheviks alone, including
members of the Bolshevik Centre, headed by Lenin. The resolution of the
Second Paris (Bolshevik) Group for Assistance to the R.S.D.L.P. was adopted
at a meeting on March 17 (30), 1910, and was printed as a separate leaflet.